CANCÚN, Dec 9, 2010, (IPS/TerraViva) – A rough yardstick for identifying which Asian countries make the biggest ripples in Cancún is the number of journalists who crowd around the spokesperson immediately after a press conference.

Top Chinese negotiator Xie Zhenhua does attract a fair crowd, but his popularity is constrained by the fact that he requires an interpreter, which does not allow for repartee or off-the-cuff remarks when there is a volley of questions by journalists thrusting their microphones at him.

Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh has certainly come into his own on this score. As the spokesperson for the BASIC group of countries, which includes Brazil, South Africa and China, he is articulate, well-informed and witty. Journalists swarm around him after a press conference, eager to get him make a scathing remark about another country or group of countries.

This was very evident at a BASIC media meet where he listed, among three “non-negotiables”, the need for fast-start financing. “It hasn’t been fast, hasn’t even started and there is hardly any finance,” he quipped.

Ramesh expressed deep concern about the U.S. offer to reduce carbon emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, which worked out to a four percent reduction from the 1990 levels used as a baseline by Kyoto Protocol parties.

He argued that without domestic legislation, executive action could only achieve 14 percent reduction from 2020 on 2005 levels, which translates to zero percent reduction of carbon emissions from 1990 levels.

“By any standards, the U.S. offer on emission reduction for 2020 is deeply disappointing,” he said. “It’s one thing being ambitious for 2050 when all of us will be dead but the real issue is… are you going to be held accountable for 2020? Mid-term targets are very essential.” The U.S. plans to reduce its carbon emissions by 80 percent from 2005 levels by 2050.

“We would certainly expect the United States to better its emission reduction commitments as well as its offer on fast-start finance,” Ramesh said, pointing out that the lag “did no justice to the world’s pre-eminent economic power”.

He articulated the criticism of the U.S that very many delegates have been saying in the Cancún corridors but not on an open platform. The irony is that Ramesh had been seen, in the build-up to the Copenhagen talks last December, as a politician too close to the U.S.

He wrote a confidential letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, arguing that India voluntarily should accept cuts in emissions, as the U.S. has been asking China and India to do. Opposition political parties pounced on this leaked letter and he had to disown it.

With his present penchant for battling the U.S. and any other opponents of equitable agreements in Cancún, Ramesh has reinvented himself as the representative not only of South Asian negotiators but probably all of Asia. In fact, there is a sense of déjà vu, since India played this role to the hilt at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.

It is not only style that Ramesh has been amply demonstrating in Cancún, but substance as well. In November, he wrote to Todd Stern, U.S. President Barack Obama’s special envoy on climate change, to present a compromise on the contentious issues of developing countries having to monitor, report and verify (MRV) their climate control actions in return for funding, along with international consultation and analysis (ICA).

He proposed that ICA should take place every two or three years for countries whose emissions exceeded one percent of the total. The regime for developed countries would be far more rigorous. Every country would have to submit these to a Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI). There would be full transparency on all these reports. At Ramesh’s press conference specifically to explain India’s role on climate issues, copies of India’s inventory of emissions were distributed.

In his press meet, Stern referred approvingly to Ramesh’s draft. He thought that his proposal that developing countries prepare a report which updates the data of their national commissions and includes information on inventories, mitigation actions, pledges and critical assumptions on reducing emissions, and how these were different from business as usual, would be welcome.

However, he referred to how some of these were “very variable concepts”. For instance, China and India had each stated targets by which they would reduce the carbon intensity of their economies, as a percentage of their GDPs, but each country had its own method for calculating their GDP, which presented problems.

But Ramesh, always regarded as a maverick in the staid Indian political class, may be playing a game of his own. On Wednesday, he did a volte face by declaring that India was ready to accept binding emissions cuts, which changes a 27-year-old official position.

This might explain his histrionics regarding the U.S., while actually capitulating to its pressure, along with that of other small island states and fellow South Asian countries, which are in a hurry to receive fast-start financing.

He claimed he was being flexible and wanted to be proactive in breaking the impasse in Cancún. Whether this tactic will work, or will rebound on India, the next few days will tell.

CANCÚN, Dec 7, 2010 (IPS/TerraViva) – While negotiators in Cancún are struggling to make progress there is something interesting happening in the world. And it is good news. Countries have started to recognize and act upon the economic value in meeting the demand for green technology.

As a result there is “Green Race” emerging towards a more resource efficient economy. This presents huge opportunities for national and international economies which are recognised not only by business but also by countries.

More and more countries are taking note of this Green Race and start participating with serious ambitions. Take for example the recent speech by U.S Energy Secretary Steven Chu. He labeled the success of China and other countries in clean energy industries a new “Sputnik Moment” for the United States which requires a similar mobilization of America’s innovation machine so that it can compete in the global race for the jobs of the future.

“When it comes to innovation, Americans don’t take a back seat to anyone – and we certainly won’t start now,” said Secretary Chu. “From wind power to nuclear reactors to high speed rail, China and other countries are moving aggressively to capture the lead. Given that challenge, and given the enormous economic opportunities in clean energy, it’s time for America to do what we do best: innovate.”

The European Union, under the direction of the new Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard, has also changed their approach to climate change. They are now putting forward the Green Race arguments – the EU should act on climate change to protect its economic interests, jobs and economic growth. This is a clear shift from the “moral crusade” for global climate actions which sidelined the EU at COP15 in Copenhagen.

Leveraging New Technology

In the next 40 years the global population is expected to increase to 9 billion, and, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), reducing carbon emissions effectively will require investments in low-carbon technologies of approximately $750 billion per year by 2030, and more than $1.6 trillion per year from 2030 to 2050.

About 70 percent of the reductions needed could be achieved with existing technologies, but there is also a requirement to create new technologies. At the current rate, global low-carbon technologies are not progressing fast enough to keep up with the challenges of global climate change.

With this urgency in mind I must admit to being somewhat puzzled to see that in Cancún governments are debating a new international Technology Mechanism to help transfer and deploy technologies to developing countries and ignoring that a global solution already is in place – it’s called business.

We develop, deploy and transfer technologies on a massive scale every day. Governments should try to further our ability to do this rather than try to duplicate the work of business. Current negotiations should aim to enhance this system and to ensure that there are specific incentives put in place so the poorest countries can also benefit from these investments. They should not try to replace or duplicate it.

Trillions of dollars are needed to achieve the goals of emissions reductions and stabilization of the climate, nevertheless, it is not a lack of funds that is holding investment back, but mobilising financing dollars into circulation.

What Needs to Happen

The leading economies of the world have “seen the writing on the wall” – if they want to be a leading economy tomorrow, they must be able to supply resource-efficient, non polluting systems, products and services as of today.

And, to succeed a transformation of their domestic markets is needed to build demand, capabilities and scale. This level of change can only be achieved in a new partnership between governments and business. Market forces alone are not strong enough to achieve such massive transformation. We need help from supportive regulatory frameworks to stimulate demand for new products and services.

During COP 16, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) released a report called “Innovating for green growth: Drivers of private sector RD&D”.

The report demonstrates that the Green Race between countries and companies offers significant opportunities for businesses to invest in the fast-growing, low-carbon technology market. It offers suggestions to governments on how to leverage research, development and demonstration (RD&D) to drive private sector investments.

Focusing on these recommendations will help ensure acceleration of innovative low-carbon technologies that will be the foundation to any global agreement.

Countries will ultimately determine the playing field, but they cannot achieve success without business as the partner which provides the bulk of the solutions. That isn’t to say business can continue to sit idly by, the private sector has been lacking in action as a result of the financial crisis. When it’s given the appropriate triggers, business must and will spring to life.

* Björn Stigson is President of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. This column is part of a series of opinion articles and interviews about corporate social and environmental responsibility, supported by Anheuser-Busch InBev. COPYRIGHT IPS.

THIMPHU, Dec 6, 2010 (IPS/TerraViva) – A decade ago HM Dorji Wangmo Wangchuck, the Queen of Bhutan visited the ZERI pavilion at the World Expo in Hannover, the largest bamboo building in modern times, constructed with a German building permit.

The Pavilion demonstrated new emerging business models, proven to work in Colombia, Brazil, Namibia, and Sweden. As the driving force behind these innovative development models, Her Majesty thought I should come to Bhutan.

I came and was enchanted with the country, its people. I was impressed with the visionary approach of HM Jigme Singye Wangchuck, the Fourth King who not only brought democracy to his Himalayan Kingdom, but who stated early in his reign that happiness is more important than growth.

That vision is now known to the world as Gross National Happiness (GNH). There is no doubt, a nation that enshrines forest protection into the constitution, and establishes every citizen’s right to traditional medicine, embraces a different type of development.

On top of that, the government banned the sale of cigarettes and the use of plastic bags. However, the pressure to grow is high, unemployment poses a new challenge, and access to satellite television and internet entices many to emulate a consumption model desiring junk food that recently has been subjected to a special tax.

After crossing the country from West to East, four extended visits enriched by dialogues with government, private sector, and civil society, I submitted a portfolio of possible initiatives “to grow and be happy”.

Based on my experience in creating initiatives that respond to people’s needs, with what they have, I designed businesses that go beyond cutting costs, and rather generate more value, especially for remote rural communities.

And one of the core values is happiness. A portfolio of 6 top projects emerged, each based on a benchmark somewhere in the world, inspired by pioneers who have demonstrated a sense for competitiveness while having the capacity to reach out to the unreached.

These opportunities offer a platform for entrepreneurship, job generation and investments, provided the government creates the policies to make this happen.

Working sessions with the Prime Minister and his colleagues lead to the formulation of government resolutions to set the stage for implementing this GNH portfolio backed up by an independent GNH Fund.

The Prime Minister’s goal that Bhutan will revert to 100% organic farming, forever. As a first step to achieve that goal, he wishes to decree that all food served in restaurants and hotels must be certified organic.

This guarantees higher income to farmers. The second policy option may even do better: turn Bhutan into the first country committed to bioplastics. An inspirational encounter between HM the Queen with Dr. Catia Bastioli, the founder of Novamont (Italy), who is already converting agro-waste of 600 Italian farmers into bioplastics, set the stage for a promising collaborative effort.

Bhutan said no to plastic bags. Now it says yes to bioplastics made from left-overs which after use, are composted and returned to soil.

The rise of petroleum imports is hurting the Bhutanese balance of payments. The Prime Minister already declared that the country will be carbon negative. Now he is prepared to commit to eliminate all use of fossil fuel.

He is inspired by the pioneering work of Las Gaviotas, Colombia. Las Gaviotas taps pine trees, and generates all the fuel it needs. Bhutan has a 72% forest cover. We can imagine an army of “happy tappers”, generating fuel from the trees.

The capital city of Thimphu, and emerging urban centers are struggling with an increasing flow of black water, a danger to public health and costly to treat. The Prime Minister is ready to turn Bhutan into the first country committed to eliminate septic tanks, sewage and water treatment.

Instead, Bhutan wishes to opt for the Swedish technology proven to work in homes, schools, apartment blocks and city quarters by the architect Anders Nyquist in Sundsvall. This “dry” approach, that does not smell at all, eliminates viruses at source, recycles water on site, regenerates nutrients and is cheap.

Each policy decision proposed is backed by technologies, competitive business models, investment opportunities, … based on the Blue Economy, a development model that does not require anyone to pay more to be sustainable.

Everyone in the government read my book with the same title, now I realize the power of publishing! These policy decision made on December 7, 2010 inspired me to create the GNH fund with local partners. Over 100 personalities signing a letter of support go beyond the clapping hands and tapping shoulders.

We are delighted to advance on an investment rather an aid strategy and expect the fund will be operational by Spring 2011. Imagine if the big neighboring countries would opt for the same strategy.

CANCÚN, Dec 5, 2010 (IPS/TerraViva) – In 2008, China pumped out 6.5 gigatonnes of CO2, roughly equal to the emissions from the rest of Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East combined.

But that’s not the whole story. China’s enormous population means that its per capita emissions are just below five tonnes of CO2 per person – approximately a quarter that of the U.S.

China is also a developing country, and one which feels that it should be afforded space for economic growth as it tries to lift the150 million of its 1.3 billion people who still live in poverty.

In this complex environment, the country is attempting to map out a growth path for the future and negotiate the tension between fuelling economic growth and delivering on green imperatives.

It has invested more in renewable energy than most developed countries, including the United States. It has embarked on an ambitious energy efficiency programme, trying to convince its millions to change their lightbulbs, and has mainstreamed climate change into policy-making across levels of government.

But in the face of its momentous climate change challenges, is it enough?

TerraViva’s Nastasya Tay spoke to Renate Lok-Dessallien, head of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) office in China, which engages heavily with the PRC government on its strategy to deal with climate change, providing financial support and technical assistance on some of its programmes. Excerpts of the interview follow.

Q: China’s gotten a lot of attention for becoming the world’s largest emitter of CO2. Do you think the country’s trying to change perceptions of its climate change agenda?

I think China’s done a lot of work. First of all, she’s internalised the problem, which is more than one can say for some countries.

Formerly, climate change was considered a scientific study, but now it’s absolutely central to the whole development agenda. This has huge significance, because the challenges are so great.

How do you continue to develop a country the size of China – 1.3 billion people – 500 million people taken out of poverty in the last 30 years, and 150 million people remaining in poverty, and expecting that to happen for them in the years ahead. And how do you do that on a low-carbon growth path? It’s never been done before. There’s no models out there.

The second area is the whole area of energy efficiency and conservation, where they’ve set targets. And when China sets targets, they’re serious targets. And they get implemented – even sometimes at the expense of other things. [Other colleagues have said that] China’s even gone to the extent of switching off the electricity for a week.

It may seem a little extreme, but it also indicates the seriousness with which the whole issue of target-setting and target meeting is addressed in China.

Q: The country appears to be taking climate change challenges very seriously. But is it enough?

If you look at it from an absolute emissions reduction perspective, it’s not enough.

China has to do more, but all countries have to do more. And it looks very much like China is taking it seriously, but it’s also waiting for other countries to take it seriously. In particular, the other big emitter countries, which happen to be developed countries.

There’s still a long way to go. They have competing demands on them. And how do you balance the need for development, the need for poverty reduction, with the need emissions reduction?

We have some technology fixes which allow you to both, but on a large scale which would make a big dent in emissions reduction, we don’t yet have a magic bullet. It will be tough sailing for a while until we have that kind of technology. So they’ve recognised that as well, and are investing heavily in innovation and research to develop the technologies.

Q: Do you think it might be possible or desirable to replicate China’s efforts in other developing countries?

A lot depends on the international financing mechanisms that finally, hopefully come to be. It’s not realistic to expect least developed countries to dole out huge proportions of their budgets on this – some proportion yes, obviously, but to the same degree as China, probably not. So there we’re probably dependent on the whole issue of international financing for climate change.

I think that a lot of people misunderstand China, and perhaps have misconceived ideas about how the system actually works.

Government has set serious targets and they’ve actually linked the personal performance assessment system of provincial leaders and some of the large city leaders on meeting some of these targets. That in itself is totally replicable. Why don’t developed countries do that?

It seems like a very responsible way to go about it, and it doesn’t have anything to do with the kind of government that you have. It just means that you’re taking it seriously.

I think getting the incentive system right is the essence of it. If the country as a whole decides that it’s an important priority, then it’s beholden upon whichever government you’re talking about to figure out the mechanisms.

Each country has its own governance system, each country knows how it operates. It doesn’t have to be the same.

I think the performance system is totally replicable. That’s what good governance is all about – getting the incentive system right. Whether it’s climate change, or whatever you’re talking about.

Q: So, what’s next for the country? What are we likely to see in the next few years?

As we move to the 12th Plan period in China, they’re going to be restructuring the economy on multiple fronts.

In the aftermath of the global financial crisis, they realised their economy was over-dependent on an export-led system. Now that there’s a rising middle class in China, they want to migrate the structure towards a more consumption-based system.

At the same time they’re doing that, they’re trying also to feed in a low-carbon growth path and cope with a lot of poverty. They’ve got a lot on their hands, and getting the right balance is going to be a challenge. But they can get the right balance, and they’re certainly moving in that direction. That’ll be a huge inspiration for other countries.

NAIROBI, Dec 4, 2010 (IPS/TerraViva) – 2010 A year after much touted climate change summit in Copenhagen, country negotiators from around the world are together again to work out an international response to climate change.

While many believe we should lower our expectations for this year’s climate change summit being held in Cancun, this would be a mistake. As global temperatures rise, so do the challenge’s for the world’s poorest citizens­women, especially those living in developing countries.

Women are living on the frontlines of climate change, and are ready to be active partners in dealing with climate change. The negotiations in Cancun should be an opportunity to empower women and make concrete commitments that will turn some promises of earlier negotiations into a fair, binding and legal document.

From food shortages to forest degradation and new and more complex health risks, as well as an increased likelihood of conflict over resources, the impacts of climate change threaten to further jeopardize the lives of women and girls.

But just as many women are bearing the greatest burden of climate change because of their role as providers for their families, it is women who are developing the solutions that will save our world from the impacts of global warming.

Take, for example, the challenge of ensuring our world shifts to a “low carbon” future. The success of investment in developing states to circumvent development reliant on fossil fuels depends on local co-operation, and capacity on the ground. This is where women are key.

Through its green technology initiative in India, the Self Employed Women’s Association has helped provide over 150,000 women with microcredit and training required to take advantage of new green technology. While the developed world talks about action, women from the poorest sectors of India’s economy are cutting carbon emissions by ending their reliance on coal, re-using forms of solid waste and promoting the merits of alternative energy.

Similarly, in regions where women are able to be decision makers over land-use and resources, they are proving to be a positive force for sustainable change. With women at the forefront, the Green Belt Movement in Kenya has planted ten of millions of trees to restore local habitats and reduce fuel wood reliance on precious finite forest resources.

In Malawi, women farmers have joined together in ‘farmers’ clubs’ where they share information on seeds and cultivation techniques that are able to adapt to the degradation of soil and changes in rainfall patterns caused by global warming. This reduces their vulnerability to climate change induced drought and prolonged crop failure.

But it is not just women in the developing word who are taking on the challenge of climate change. As the research from North America, Europe and India demonstrates, women around the world demonstrate greater scientific knowledge of climate change, show more concern and are more willing to adopt policies that are designed to address global warming.

Internationally, women leaders are at the forefront of a global civil society network working to hold government, international institutions, and the private sector to account for their promises on climate action.

Yet despite their willingness to take political and individual action, entrenched inequality between men and women continues to pose a critical obstacle to global efforts to address climate change.

The most fuel-efficient stove ever produced will do little to bring an end to deforestation or reduce carbon emissions if women do not have access to the training required to use it, micro-credit needed to buy it or the financial freedom to control household expenditure. For example, it was shown that in Zimbabwe in the 1990s solar cooking stoves failed to be adopted largely because men objected to women purchasing or learning how to use the new devices.

In many parts of the world women do not own collective or individual title to the land from which they live. This lack of control means they are less able to implement sustainable agriculture or adapt forest management strategies that contribute to climate change mitigation as their voices are not heard when decisions are made. It also impedes their ability to participate effectively in programs such as REDD+, which offers financial incentives for reducing emissions from deforestation.

REDD+ will only work if policy makers are willing to learn from grassroots women. One of the key lessons is that focusing on carbon as the sole measure of the success of a climate change project has the potential to derail international efforts to combat climate change. Moving forward, we need to also take into consideration community rights to land and carbon, the livelihoods of people in communities, and issues related to governance.

Women need to be part of the decision making process. At present women are vastly under-represented in decision-making roles. In March this year, when UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced a climate finance panel expected to mobilize $100 billion dollars a year to help those most affected by climate change, the 19-person panel did not include a single woman.

This is unacceptable. Not only should women be represented on a climate change finance panel. As well, every effort possible must also be made to ensure that women have access to the education, training and finances needed to adopt sustainable technologies and participate in the green economy.

Women and girls also need the land and resource rights to implement progressive forestry or agricultural practices. Last and certainly not least, women need the basic democratic rights that will enable them to vote for and promote green policies at the local, national and international level.

Citizens everywhere are waiting for real action on climate change. If the international community is serious about addressing climate change, it must recognize that women are a fundamental part of the climate solution.

* Wangari Maathai won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2004 for her work on the environment and democratic participation in Kenya. She and her five sisters Nobel Peace Laureates created the Nobel Women’s Initiative in 2006 to work on human rights and climate justice. (IPS COPYRIGHT)

Construction has begun on Medupi, a new power plant that will produce 4,800 MW - and 26 million tonnes of CO2 - per year. Credit: Eskom

By IPS Correspondents

JOHANNESBURG, Nov 29, 2010 (IPS/TerraViva) – South Africa is Africa’s largest economy and the continent’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. The country’s emissions per capita are on par with those of the United Kingdom, and more than twice as high as China’s emissions by the same measure.
South Africa is presently responsible for about half of Africa’s emissions, with 80 percent of its estimated 400 million metric tonnes of CO2 coming from the energy sector alone.

Africa is expected to be disproportionately affected by climate change, with a global rise of two degrees Celsius – the acknowledged worldwide target – resulting in a possible four to five degree rise in many parts of the continent. Changes in temperature, quantity and distribution of rainfall have enormous implications for farming, compounded by weak infrastructure and the vulnerability of impoverished populations.

But going into negotiations at the U.N. Climate Conference in Cancún, it is likely that South Africa will align itself with other big developing economies, advocating an approach that prioritises poverty alleviation over any binding commitment to reducing emissions.

Ahead of the 15th Conference of Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change in Denmark in December 2010, South Africa announced a voluntary commitment to reduce emissions by 34 percent below “business as usual” levels by 2020. This reduction is, however, conditional upon international support that is not certain to materialise.

South Africa’s Minister for Water and Environmental Affairs, Edna Molewa, will be representing South Africa’s interests at the 16th Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change in Cancún, Mexico.

“We believe that it is quite important that as developing countries we also get an opportunity to allow development to happen because of poverty,” Molewa says. “We need to allow space for us to actually introduce those emissions [reductions] over time, because developed countries have gone through the processes.”

The country experienced rolling blackouts in 2008, severely impacting the mining and manufacturing sectors, and causing the cancellation of big energy-intensive projects. Securing an energy supply to support economic growth and reduce high levels of poverty remains uppermost for planners.

The government’s second Integrated Resource Plan seeks to map out long-term energy and technology options for the South Africa, taking into consideration sustainability, security of supply, accessibility, affordability, security of supply and environmental impact.

The short-term answers are dirty: the coal-fired Medupi power station is expected to contribute 4,800 megawatts to the national electricity grid from 2012, and to emit around 26 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, despite employing supercritical coal technology, which is less polluting than older coal plants’. The subsequent Kusile station is projected to have similar outputs on both scores.

In its draft energy plan, government expects that by 2030, 48 percent of the total energy demand will be met by coal, 16 percent from renewable sources and 14 from nuclear generation, including the construction of six new nuclear power stations, the first of which would come online in 2023.

The draft plan also considers a “low-carbon scenario” which would involve an energy mix of 36 percent coal-sourced electricity, 32 percent renewables and 12 percent nuclear. But planners found that although this scenario would cut carbon emissions by 20 percent more, it would drive up costs by 50 percent than the “balanced scenario” the draft plan endorses.

Richard Worthington from the World Wide Fund for Nature says that in South Africa there is a perception that a sustainable pathway forward puts jobs at risk. “But the evidence is clearly out there that a low-carbon economy is a more labour intensive economy,” he says. “The less you rely on the concentrated energy of fossil fuels, the more likely you are to need more people working.”

Greenpeace International and the European Renewable Energy Council have set out a vision for a low-carbon energy future involving increased efficiency, renewable energy sources and expanded reliance on combined heat and power generation. Greenpeace says its Energy [R]evolution scenario would secure power for economic growth while creating an additional 78,000 jobs in the energy sector by 2030. It would also reduce the country’s emissions – 2050 emissions would fall by 60 percent as compared to 2005 levels.

An important challenge to green scenarios like this one is how quickly the cost to consumers per unit of renewable energy can be reduced to match the price of polluting energy: higher energy costs for either industry or the country’s poor are viewed as unacceptable.

Although it is well-endowed with solar and wind energy resources, South Africa has not developed a robust renewable energy industry.

The Copenhagen Summit failed to reach a binding agreement on reducing emissions, primarily because of developed countries were unwilling to sign up to new commitments without matching commitments from the rising developing powers. Little progress has been made on this front during 2010 and few expect the Cancun summit to achieve a breakthrough.

But with South Africa hosting the 2011 round of climate change negotiations in Durban, Africa – and the world – will be looking for it to demonstrate leadership in reconciling development priorities and the drastic reductions in greenhouse emissions that the world needs.

Protestors call for the entire Hazelwood power station to be shut down. Credit:Stephen de Tarczynski/IPS.

By Stephen de Tarczynski

MELBOURNE, Australia, Nov 18, 2010 (IPS/TerraViva) – Environmentalists here are on the verge of a significant victory in their efforts to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas pollution, as the Victorian state government negotiates with the owner of the country’s “dirtiest power station” to shut down the coal-fired facility.
Cam Walker, spokesman of the green group Friends of the Earth, says that it has been “a great victory…in that we’ve moved them in a few short years from a position of extending the lease, almost indefinitely, to a situation where the (Victorian) Premier is now saying there will be a staged closure of the plant.”

The 1600-megawatt Hazelwood power station, located 150 kilometres east of the state capital, Melbourne, produces up to a quarter of Victoria state’s electricity requirements.

An information war kicked off between environmentalists and the plant’s owner, International Power, following a 2005 report by conservation group World Wildlife Fund that ranked Hazelwood the largest carbon dioxide-emitting power station in the industrialised world.

Campaigners now say that Hazelwood is Australia’s “dirtiest” power plant, producing in excess of 16 million tonnes of greenhouse gas pollution each year. Additionally, they argue the plant is a massive user of water – some 27 billion litres per year – and is the country’s single biggest emitter of dioxin.

The campaigners say that Hazelwood, first commissioned in 1959, has become outdated and needs to be replaced with renewable energy technology.

International Power, for its part, argues that the WWF study was “highly biased” and that “Hazelwood is well down the list of the world’s CO2 emitting power plants.” It also rejects claims that the plant is the most polluting in Australia.

The company, whose global operations outside Australia include power plants in Pakistan, Thailand and Indonesia in addition to interests in North America, Europe and the Middle East, argues that Hazelwood’s actual water usage is less than half of that claimed by environmentalists and also denies that the plant emits dangerous pollutants.

International Power purchased the previously state-owned Hazelwood for 2.35 billion Australian dollars (2.3 billion U.S. dollars) in 1996 with a 40-year life. The company admits that the plant releases large volumes of carbon dioxide – 13 percent of Victoria’s emissions, equating to three percent of Australia’s total – but it dismisses claims by green groups that Hazelwood was due to close in 2005 and was only saved by an extension to its lease.

Instead, the company points to a government-approved environmental impacts statement which, in 2005, allowed International Power to move a road and the course of a river in order to access brown coal reserves at Hazelwood in return for a 445-million tonne cap on the plant’s total greenhouse gas emissions.

But with the Victorian government now in preliminary negotiations with Hazelwood’s owner to shut down a quarter of the plant by 2014 as part of a process to close the entire power station in stages, environmentalists are on the verge of a big win.

Walker told IPS that he is surprised at the campaign’s seemingly rapid growth. “Just over a year ago, I really think this wasn’t on the agenda of the state government and they have come a very long way,” he says.

The Victorian government, led by Premier John Brumby, has committed to reducing the state’s greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent, based on 2000 emission levels, over the next decade.

While Brumby has sought federal financial backing in order to compensate International Power for closing Hazelwood, the Premier says that his government will act “on our own” if no assistance is forthcoming.

International Power also appears ready to step back from its investment. The company submitted a plan to the federal government in 2008 in which it outlined a phased closure of Australia’s older coal-fired power stations over a 10-year period “in return for a tariff that reflected the market value of the asset and reflected the equity invested by the owners.”

Company spokesman Trevor Rowe says that “nothing has changed” in International Power’s position since this submission was made.

While media reports here have suggested that the payout to International Power will be hundreds of millions of dollars, Rowe refused to discuss with IPS the amount of compensation that the company is seeking.

Regardless of the dollar amount that is ultimately paid to International Power, environmentalists are keen to make the most of the situation.

“It would represent the first coal-fired power generation that’s been turned off in Australia for climate change reasons, so it would be a significant step forward,” says Mark Wakeham of Environment Victoria, one of a host of green non-governmental organisations campaigning for the closure of Hazelwood.

Wakeham, who was involved in early protests against the power station in 2005, has seen the campaign grow from actions by local campaigners and environmental groups to a movement that receives considerable media coverage on the back of widespread community concern about Australia’s greenhouse gas pollution.

“I think the Hazelwood campaign has very effectively told a clear story about what we need to do if we’re going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but also that it’s possible to do so in a very quick period of time,” he says.

The key to the campaign’s hitherto success has clearly been its ability to result in tangible outcomes.

“For all the talk on climate change over the last ten years, we haven’t had governments taking action to stop polluters polluting. Until that happens, emissions aren’t going to actually fall,” says Wakeham. (END)